Originally Posted By alexbook Does anybody else find it ironic that this whole controversy has developed around one of the most boring talk show hosts on TV?
Originally Posted By hopemax > But I still would have rather they not picked a moderator who stands to make more money if Obama wins. So then, you have more of an issue with the McCain campaign, for agreeing to her in the first place, than with Ifil herself?
Originally Posted By chickendumpling I used to wonder how McCarthyism started in this country. I don't wonder that anymore.
Originally Posted By utahjosh No, my issue is with the directors of the debate, who chose the moderator. And to Iffil for not revealing the book to the debate commission. The McCain camp claims they didn't know about the book back then, I think. Even if they did, now was the best time for them to bring it up to benefit their campaign. Which I can understand, even if it's not that cool. That's your focus, of course. I still say it was a bad choice for moderator Do you think choosing someone who will make money if Obama wins was a GOOD idea?
Originally Posted By ecdc Seriously, what's with conservatives acting as if everything is independent of them these days? First it's the Iraq war. "Whoa! We don't know who made this total mess, but we've got to stay 'til it's cleaned up!" Then it's change is needed in Washington. Remember McCain's Olympics ad? "Washington is broken. John McCain knows it." "Boy, somebody really screwed up Washington and the White Hosue the last eight years! We need some change!" Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. And now we get Gwen Ifill. The McCain camp agreed to her people. They said she was just grand. Now, when Palin is a total disaster, do they object. So just like the media is biased against Palin, now Ifill's in the tank for Obama. It gets more and more laughable by the minute. Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if the McCain camp didn't know about the book. They've shown us more than we could ever ask just how thorough they are about vetting people. If McCain knew half of what he now knows about Palin, do we think for two seconds he would've picked her?
Originally Posted By utahjosh Do you think choosing someone who will make money if Obama wins was a GOOD idea?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Have you ever even watched Gwen Ifill on the NewsHour? She is one of the most thoughtful interviewers out there. Anyone who suggests that she is biased hasn't ever watched any of her work. Can you provide any previous examples where she exhibited bias in her interviews? She's done thousands. Certainly, if this was an issue, someone would have provided an example by now. It's not like Gwen Ifill just became a journalist last week.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I have no evidence of prior bias. Then again, I have no prior examples with her able to make money if she helps her guy win. I honestly think she'll do a good fair job. I still think it was a mistake to pick someone who will make money if Obama wins.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ Check out the Obama tax plan. 95% of America makes more money if Obama wins!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Does anybody else find it ironic that this whole controversy has developed around one of the most boring talk show hosts on TV?<< Lou Dobbs is not on trial here!
Originally Posted By alexbook >>I still think it was a mistake to pick someone who will make money if Obama wins.<< So whom are you going to pick? Try finding a journalist on TV who doesn't have a book deal. I dare you.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy How about we have the debate moderated by Regis & Kelly? Would that satisfy the right wing? (As long as Regis doesn't ask Palin if she wants to use her lifeline)
Originally Posted By mawnck utahjosh ... Let's assume that she is biased. What are you expecting her to do?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I still think it was a mistake to pick someone who will make money if Obama wins.<< So then you agree that the McCain camp dropped the ball when they agreed to have her moderate without checking her out first. Therefore, you agree that they have no right to criticize her now when the information about her book was readily available before they agreed she could moderate. Because Josh, you keep saying you don't think it's a good idea as if it's independent of McCain. McCain said it was ok. He could've said no. He could've asked some questions. Debate preparations between the campaigns are historically pretty involved. When Bush debated Gore, his camp insisted on at least one debate where the candidates were seated at a table instead of standing because he's more at ease that way. Just for this debate, McCain asked (and got from Obama, even though Obama should've raised hell) shortened response times because Palin rarely uses all of her allotted times in previous debates. Debates are an intense part of the campaign. Please stop acting as if this was sprung on McCain and he had no choice.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <utahjosh ... Let's assume that she is biased. What are you expecting her to do?> I don't think she will be biased.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I can understand that others would be concerned.<< If I were a McCain supporter, I'd be deeply concerned. I'd be very concerned that McCain seems to agree to people without checking them out first. I'd be very concerned that my candidate was reckless in his choices. So on that, we're agreed.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'd be very concerned that McCain seems to agree to people without checking them out first.<< I'm noticing a pattern here. ; )
